Re: * makes hubey

H. M. Hubey (hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu)
28 Nov 1995 13:53:06 -0500

bbur@wpo.nerc.ac.uk (Bill Burnett) writes:

>I'm sorry, I would have thought it was obvious from my arguments (which have
>included man, leeches, bacteria, viruses, cows, bats and others) that I *am*
>talking about the evolution of all living things.

In fact it's not difficult to produce vector DE's which bifurcate
like a tree. And it might be possible to even make them linear.
Not that I can figure out how useful they will be, but it just
hit me a few weeks ago how it can be done. If i have time
I'm going to try to find the eqs for the probability
density of such equations. That should show clustering and
should do away with your objections.

Besides, the whole exercise was what might be called
descriptive mathematics, sort of like math without math.
AT least there will be a competing analogy to anthropomoprhic
analogies currently in fashion and this analogy has all the
advantages of math and none of the disadvantages of those
analogies in the vogue.

>Which you were meant to interpret as "we didn't, they went in a different
>direction from us a long time ago." I'm sorry if the irony was too much for
>you. I thought it was fairly obvious.

It doesn't make any difference obviously. The average has a direction
so do the averages of the clusters.

Besides,these are instantaneous ones and speciation cannot be
shown there. They have to be averaged again over a longer time
scale to show tree like branches and to derive a deterministic-like
approximate equations. All in theory so far of course, but isn't
it better than constant and confusing anthropomorphising?

>Because you claimed to know where we were headed. You claimed we were the
>most complex by *your* criterion and that your criterion is the only one
>worth looking at. Now you appear to be admitting (my interpretation) that
>there might be more to it.

Averaged over a long time scale the clusters will become tree-like
and represent the deterministic (approximate of course) equations.

Over even a longer time scale, yes the direction will become even
more obvious. Even you know it. Start from bacteria, then up\
and around plants, onto the animal kingdom. And looking at the
bones start from reptiles, to quadripeds like dogs,ungulates etc
then on to humans. Keep track of the skull shape, and the general
shape of the skeleton. Obviously things like snakes, turtles are
outliers; they went off further from the trunk of the tree.

There's no magic in this. It's only the extreme reaction to
creationists that produces is the extreme know-nothings of
PA like Gould. I'm sure he knows that much of what he says
is extreme and doesn't really mean it.

>No. What's *your* hidden agenda?

What?

>Why don't you do the DE's and tell me? Or (gird yourself for another cheap
>shot) we could dig them up and gaze at them. That would tell us, wouldn't
>it, with some degree of reliability.

Why is it worse than constant and confusing and extreme anthropomorphising?

do you have something against math too? Is it only good for every
other science but inappropriate for biology and evolution? so what's
appropriate?

>None of it, as far as I'm aware, seeing as you haven't quoted the page number
>where it says evolution has one direction and man is the most advanced because
>he has the potential to build rocket ships.

I said it, and you know that too.

And yes, man is the most advanced. How is it that you can deny it?

What drives people to say things that even a 4th grader knows is false.

-- 





				Regards, Mark

				http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey